Comcast Discloses Throttling Practices 206
Wired reports that Comcast finally provided information on its network management practices late Friday. In a report to the FCC (PDF), the cable company admitted to targeting P2P protocols Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FasTrack, and Gnutella. Quoting:
"For each of the managed P2P protocols, the [Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch] monitors and identifies the number of simultaneous unidirectional uploads that are passed from the [Cable Modem Termination System] to the upstream router. Because of the prevalence of P2P traffic on the upstream portion of our network, the number of simultaneous unidirectional upload sessions of any particular P2P protocol at any given time serves as a useful proxy for determining the level of overall network congestion. For each of the protocols, a session threshold is in place that is intended to provide for equivalently fair access between the protocols, but still mitigate the likelihood of congestion that could cause service degradation for our customers."
Re:Now what will happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is better because now consumers can make an informed decision when choosing a internet provider.
An 'unlimited' internet connection at an affordable price may look like a good deal but if you knew in advance it was actually limited in some way you might have chosen another provider with a better offer. Now at least you know what you're getting for your money and you can make a fair comparison between different providers.
This improves transparency and thus competition and ultimately benefits the consumer.
Re:Now what will happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comcast will enforce bandwidth caps. How's that better than throttling?
Even if it turns out that 250 gig limits make for a shitty service, at least Comcast are honest about the limits they put on you, so you know what you're buying and you can take the limits placed on you into account when deciding what to download.
Re:Evil from cable companies? Nevar. (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost Worse than Legalese (Score:5, Insightful)
interpreted to mean (Score:3, Insightful)
our big fancy piece of software slows your download speed to a trickle if you use hardly any of your upload speed. so god forbid you try to ssh or rdesktop into your box
Re:I have a sneaking suspicion (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not really anti-competitive. It's progressive in fact.
The bottom line is that ISPs pay for out-of-network traffic and they can't expect to take that cost and not pass it on.
So, for an ISP to recognize that they are only out of pocket for traffic that goes outside their network and not limit your in-network traffic is actually good.
If P2P protocols were smart enough to recognize and use in-network peers (which could simply be a product of latency perhaps, but better methods are probably possible) before going out of network, think about how much more you could download without hitting your cap.
Take it, leave it, or leave it (Score:5, Insightful)
That is better because now consumers can make an informed decision when choosing a internet provider.
Only one high-speed Internet provider offers service in many areas of the United States (home of Slashdot). This means choosing a high-speed Internet provider is like choosing any other public utility such as your power or water provider. What recourse do people dissatisfied with a public utility have?
you can make a fair comparison between different providers.
You get this provider if you live here; you get that provider if you live there. Should people really be choosing where to live based on the only ISP that isn't dial-up?
Re:Bullshit.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an American - so my understanding may be off.
I thought "Free Speech" meant literally that you couldn't be arrested for saying "stuff".
Specifically it doesn't mean:
So, with that in mind. How is imposing a bandwidth cap in any way related to free speach?
Sure I could see if they didn't let you visit some, politically derived, blacklist of websites then you could argue they were suppressing some topics. But otherwise?
Hyperbole - and the more times you do that the less people pay attention. Cry Wolf, anybody?
Re:Now what will happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea isn't to guarantee the service you would want to have in your wildest dreams. It is to receive all terms and conditions prior to sale so that you can make an informed decision. It is fraud prevention.
Re:I have a sneaking suspicion (Score:4, Insightful)
well, let them go home if they're not going to offer service like a big boy does. This is the Internet we're talking about. INTER being the key word. They're not being progressive here. They're being very regressive. Comcast wants to be the sole content provider to their subscribers like AOL did back in the 90's. Until AOL subscribers discovered the actual Internet.
This is what Comcast wants. They want their users to use their services. This is purely anti-competitive behavior. I say, if Comcast doesn't want to provide true undiscriminatory Internet access, get out of the damn business. They're already screwing their customers. Deregulation has allowed Comcast to act like this.
True competition would allow me to jump to an ISP who would provide the same level of service at the same cost without these BS tactics to force me to use their content.
Unfortunately, there's no other ISP here who provides cable. And no DSL providers want to provide me DSL despite having fibre to the curb. Since AT&T hasn't disclosed that I have fibre to the curb. Speakeasy thinks I can't only get 144k IDSL. AT&T knows I can get 100Mbit if they offered it. Comcast just wants me to stop using the service altogether. I hope the FCC really drops the hammer on these anti-competitive greedy bastards.
Re:VOIP and anti-competitive practices (Score:3, Insightful)
I have Comcast cable TV and Internet service. I have personal experience with them, and don't like 'em very much. It pains me to defend their sorry asses, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, I'll do it.
Comcast doesn't offer a "VOIP product" -- they offer phone service. The handoff to the consumer is an analog POTS connection. Using VOIP as the transport mechanism is an implementation detail. As a facilities-based carrier, they have every right to dedicate bandwidth on their network to carry this phone traffic. It's no different than AT&T dedicating bandwidth on their networks to carry traditional circuit switched voice traffic.
Re:Now what will happen? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not discriminating against any application, not even the legal ones.
I hope by "application" you mean "use" (noun), as opposed to "software product".
BitTorrent, for example, isn't illegal (I hope). Using it to distribute some specific content might be.
Re:Evil from cable companies? Nevar. (Score:5, Insightful)
People forget what "unlimited" Internet means when used in marketing access plans. Back in the "old" days, your connection to the Internet was metered by time since everyone pretty much got the maximum available and you didn't have bandwidth tiering you have with today's massive capacities. You usually had X hours of service per month in your plan. This is the "limited" part of the sales pitch. Eventually the ISPs were able to offer "Unlimited" access, meaning you could leave it on 24/7 all month and only pay the monthly fee.
Now some people are clamoring that they were sold "Unlimited" service and they are being cheated. Bullshit. Your still allowed to stay connected for an "unlimited" amount of time which is exactly what your paying for and my guess is that your service contract states this, you get X bandwidth available 24/7. Even then, that 24/7 isn't guaranteed but it's the exception not the rule when there's a problem with connectivity [Insert chosen ISP bashing here].
I'm not saying this is a Good Thing(TM), but it's not like anyone has been cheated. It's just been a case of very slimy marketing by the ISPs.
Actually, this was put in place to HELP VoIP (Score:5, Insightful)
This was put in place per Comcast's talk at the IETF largely to IMPROVE VoIP service from Vonage et al. You look back to 2006, before this was deployed, and there were lots of complaints about "Comcast is disrupting Vonage and other voip services..."
Those complaints largely dissapeared after Comcast started policing P2P uploads.
Re:Bullshit.. (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, you can say "fire" in a crowded theater, especially if there actually is one. But even if there isn't, you can't be arrested for saying it. Although you do assume some liability for any damages that might result, which even if no one is injured will probably amount to thousands of dollars in re-issued tickets (it was a *crowded* theater, after all).
Re:Take it, leave it, or leave it (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is a capitalist economy, right ? Isn't the market supposed to fix this ?
Free markets do not work like that. Free markets fix things when there is an substantial economic incentive. Broadband infrastructure is expensive, time-consuming to lay down, dominated by strong players with political capital and related technology changes rapidly. Given those, why would the free market invest (tens of) billions of dollars in a long term, difficult and risky project? If you have billions of dollars, there are many many more ways to make more money in much less time. Free markets don't magically fix things for consumers. Free markets are about providing the opportunity for capital to move freely and as a result, make the best use of said capital. That's it. The issue is that people apply all kinds of benefits to "best use", as in no monopolies, cheap products, etc., which just isn't how it works. Especially not in the short term.
I also live in a small city in the Netherlands btw. I can choose dozen of ISP's, but only one which is faster than 8 Mbps. Not sure about the figures, but despite what the OPTA (Dutch Telecom Watchdog) says, there does exist a monopoly for "fast" internet in a considerable part of the Netherlands (wet finger approach: 25-35%). And moving to an area with faster internet??? That is rather a ridiculously expensive solution.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Evil from cable companies? Nevar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, simple example.
Just like their "up to" line, they want to advertise more than they can do while lying, as many businesses do. This is like having a 160mph speedometer on a bicycle. Sure, you can do up to 160mph, or have unlimited usage, but they hid the reality, which is "no, you can't have what we promised or else we will disconnect you".
Schenck v. United States (Score:2, Insightful)
Oliver Wendell Holmes, the judge writing the Unaninous(sp) brief for the case
used the fire thing as an example.
The private entities in the US operate under the US Constitution. Therefore they
must obey the law as written or ajudicated through precedence. Failing to do
so would open them up to a ton of lawsuits.
The tail shall not wag the dog. We ALLOW these people to do business here, not the
other way around.
Which is why p2p should move to UDP (Score:4, Insightful)
And move the TCP part into the application. You can't break a session where there is none to break.
Azureus already has UDP support, but it very rarely falls back to UDP unfortunately.
Re:Evil from cable companies? Nevar. (Score:2, Insightful)
If they say it's unlimited without telling you there are limits, and then they put a limit on anything , then they are ripping you off. It doesn't matter at all what limits there were 10 years ago, unlimited doesn't just mean one limit has been removed, it means all limits have been removed.
Sure. Post a copy of your service agreement that states your connection is "unlimited" or quit beating the old strawman to death. We're all pretty bored of it by now.
They don't Throttle, they Forge Reset Packets (Score:5, Insightful)
Per that PDF, on page 10 Comcast described how they "delay" the packets, using "reset packets." Stop letting them get away with calling forging reset packets "throttling". Instead, they are blocking connections via forgery.
Except, they admit that packets with the reset header are only supposed to be used by the two end computers, and not by any of the routers in between, which should be handled by ICMP [wikipedia.org].
They say, in that pdf, "As used in our current congestion management practices, the reset packet is used to convey that the system cannot, at that moment, process additional high-resource demands without creating risk of congestion.", which is just crazy.
Reset isn't a "slow down" message, it is a "stop sending me any kind of data on this connection" message.
Re:Take it, leave it, or leave it (Score:5, Insightful)
"The US is a capitalist economy"
Oh my god, that's *so *CUTE !!!!
The US, if you hadn't heard, is what we call a "mixed economy" -- with an interesting mix:
Profits are held by private individuals, and losses are distributed among the general public via bailouts, etc.
Re:They don't Throttle, they Forge Reset Packets (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Take it, leave it, or leave it (Score:5, Insightful)
Profits are held by private individuals, and losses are distributed among the general public via bailouts, etc.
Oh bullshit.
Profits are divided between the individual and the state. Losses are almost always suffered by the individual. How often does the state step in to help bailout any business? You think AMD is going to get a helping hand if they go under? Did Pets.com get any help? Mostly the government says "suck it" if you fail and "gimme" when you succeed.
As for the recent "bailouts", it's going to be the profitable and well-off being taxed to bailout institutions that gave money away (rich people's money, mostly) to that part of the general public that is never going to pay that money back.
Fuck. The might as well have just increased income taxes and handed the money directly to those with bad credit. They could have avoided the charade of mortgages, etc, and just called it welfare and subsidized housing.
Re:Take it, leave it, or leave it (Score:3, Insightful)
That is, by far, the most useful explanation of what's wrong with the American economy I have EVER seen.
Re:Evil from cable companies? Nevar. (Score:3, Insightful)
If it says it in the advertising, and they don't do it, that is false advertising, which is illegal, REGARDLESS of what the agreement says.
Ok, show me some recent advertising that literally denotes that the service shall be without limitation.
In case you hadn't noticed, the theme here is "put up or shut up" because it's a windy day and that poor strawman is blown to tatters already.
Re:Evil from cable companies? Never. (Score:3, Insightful)
The part I liked was how they are degrading customer service to prevent degradation of customer service. Orwell would have loved these guys.
Remember, Big Chimpy is watching you.
Re:Take it, leave it, or leave it (Score:3, Insightful)
>The US is a capitalist economy, right ?
Not for long. With the government owning companies, we are fast headed to becoming the USSA (United Socialist States of America)
In a truly capitalist economy the market would have crashed and hit rock bottom by now and we'd have a lot less airlines. However it might be sustainable by now, if the depression were over and it had run it's course. We have become experts at delaying the inevitable.
>Isn't the market supposed to fix this ?
In a market where tax dollars are paying for service infrastructure? There can only be truly one of each type (cable, fiber, telco) That opportunity has been destroyed by our politicians. EG Verizon gets the politicians to spend tax dollars on infrastructure. Other telcos do rent this from them, but ultimately cannot provide the same level of service for the rates Verizon can. They are usually short lived because they can't really compete. Verizon doesn't pay rent on it 8). They are double dipping. They get tax dollars on the back end and charge us for service on the front.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/03/09/telco-money-grab-numbers-revealed [webpronews.com]
"Costs to Customers - We estimate that $206 billion dollars in excess profits and tax deductions were collected - over $2000 per household. "
Not only are we paying for it for them, but we lag behind the rest of the world (#16 for broadband penetration). At least in a real socialist country, you'd get it for free, but we have to pay a lot of cash for bandwidth running on gear we paid for with our taxes.
As it is, we're headed for disaster. The government getting involved just prolongs things. Maybe after the world economy collapses, learns some valuable lessons and starts to recover, we'll have true capitalism again in the US.
I am optimistic in this regard. However, for now, capitalism is on life support because the economy is artificially propped up with tax payer dollars.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, but I'm used to it. Nobody likes to hear the truth.
-Viz
Re:Take it, leave it, or leave it (Score:3, Insightful)
I can never understand the cadre of poor and middle class who feel the need to defend the rich. Do you think defending the rich will make you rich? Do you think the rich will accept you as anything but a quaint and loyal pet? Or maybe you feel the tax burden, and are just pissed off about taxes? If that's the case, don't you realize that you, the poor or middle class, are paying an unfair burden at the expense of the wealthy?
Nor can I ever understand people who divide other people into Manichaean classes like you're doing. Economic policies are either sound or unsound, regardless of the numbers in the bank accounts.
When's the last time you got a job from the broke-ass bum "class" you seem to idolize?
And if a rising tide doesn't lift all boats, where the hell'd you get that 3-gigaflop computer?
Re:Take it, leave it, or leave it (Score:3, Insightful)
"How often does the state step in to help bailout any business?"
Um... half a dozen times a week, give or take.
Okay, maybe that's a recent trend. How about farm and energy subsidies?
"As for the recent "bailouts", it's going to be the profitable and well-off being taxed to bailout institutions that gave money away"
Sorry, but when the dollar tanks it tanks for everyone, not just the profitable and well-off